4/22/2025
As many of you know, it’s been a frustrating experience as we’ve entered into some of these bargaining sessions. As a team, we have put an incredible amount of time into preparing and getting ourselves ready. After our previous session management went to leadership and said our proposals were too wide ranging and expansive, despite the fact that they were well formulated and thoughtful.
Today’s session was much more productive and we were able to have more time at the table discussing proposals.
OFNHP made proposals on:
- Article 4: Union Security (counter-proposal) - Incorporate traveler IR.
- Article 8: Employee Category Definitions (counter-proposal) - Establish weekend-only position.
- Article 16F: Seniority (counter) - Ensure cross-trained employees receive verifiable and dependable training; allow ONA and Professional RNs to pick up shifts that have not been picked up by members of OFNHP RN unit.
- Article 19: Holidays: Added a day after Thanksgiving and December 24th, as well as a birthday holiday. We also fixed the issues with flex time.
- Article 32: Probationary Period: We reduced probation to 90 days to match ONA’s provision.
KP made proposals on:
- Article 28: Grievance Procedure: They wanted to stop OFNHP from bringing additional people to grievance meetings, to add timelines for arbitration, and delete mediation.
- Article 16F: Seniority (counter-proposal): Allow management to force floats to other units.
Our Bargainnig Unit Chair Katie Johnson gave an impassioned speech when passing back their Article 4 proposal that waved restrictions on traveler use. This is unacceptable and we told them why:
"Before we walk you through the counterproposal, we want to take a moment to address the heart of what your proposal represents- and why labor cannot and will not support it as written.
Let’s be clear: your proposal removes the union’s ability to review and respond to the use of travelers. It eliminates our role in identifying internal solutions. It removes accountability. And it sends a very clear message that labor is not part of the solution. That's not just disappointing, it’s offensive!
In a perfect world, travelers would be used exactly as intended: as a temporary resource. But this proposal moves us further away from that ideal. It cements a model where travelers are no longer the exception, they become the plan . A model where temporary staff fill our hospitals, while permanent staff are pushed to the side and burned out under the weight of chronic short staffing.
That is not a sustainable solution. That is not continuity of care. That is not the Kaiser Permanente we’ve all claimed to believe in. Management says this process is slow, clunky, outdated. But let’s be honest – what’s truly absurd is requesting dozens of travelers at once because the system is bleeding permanent staff faster than it can replace them. That’s not a process issue. That’s a retention issue. That’s a leadership issue!
And that is not labor’s failure. Labor didn’t create this staffing crisis. Labor didn’t cut incentives. Labor didn’t allow burnout to fester. Labor didn’t allow working conditions to deteriorate to the point where RNs are walking away from the profession altogether. You did."
Check Out Our Longer Notes Summary on How the April 22nd Session Went Here
4/9/2025
Here’s how today’s bargaining went, start to finish:
8:00am – Management called for caucus to start the day.
Then extended it. And extended it again.
92:2 – Both sides are now at the table.
Shannon and Patrick join us for the first time. Luana is out ill.
Management has two counters, but their printers were not working right so they weren’t going to present a new proposal.
Appendix J
They want to strike out the majority of the proposal stating that our scheduling process is too complex and time consuming and still does not actually fill the schedule. They propose that there is only one scheduling time frame. The intent is if you make yourself available then you should expect to work. If you are available you can just be booked at any point in the process up to 72 hours prior to shift when availability will no longer be considered and only broadcasts will be done.
They did not address all the places in Article 10 where this issue is addressed. Management seemed shocked that it is also addressed in another contract location. Unsurprisingly, Shannon, who is speaking about the proposal, does not have a copy of the contract to look at when we reference current content. Conveniently they do not mention when they can book an agency RN, and along with their proposal for Article 4 this would allow them to book as many agency staff as they want whenever they want.
Katie called them out on this, which management responded to by mumbling and then stated their intent is to use agency (including travelers) as little as possible (deadpan faces across the RN bargaining table). The proposal they sent over is incomplete, was obviously not thought through, and minimum effort was made in composing it. They would just like for management to be able to do what they want when they want.
9:49 – Management again called for a short caucus - 27 minutes at table total!
11:49 - We are back to the table after their short two hour caucus.
12:30 (42 minutes at the table) Management is again ready to call for caucus as they have plenty to work on. Umm . . . but we have more for you!
13:00 Sam: “We have a lot to work on, let's break for lunch and, well, we have a lot on our plate.”
Katie: “We have more proposals we could pass; would that be kind? No, so we are not going to.”
Sam: “Well, okay, how about we check back in at three to see where we are.”
If management had it their way we would have had a total of 69 minutes of time at the table in our five hours of scheduled bargaining by this point because they are coming unprepared! It seems that they are not doing any work on proposals outside of the scheduled bargaining time. Our team is spending hours individually and as a group on our proposals and counter-proposals with all bargaining team members having equal say and a consensus process being utilized. We have come prepared with data to back our proposals, and management is handing over one sentence proposals.
Sidebar: Katie (with Alli) asked to speak with Sam as a sidebar about this disrespect of our time.
15:13 – We return to the table.
Sam – We have a proposal and we would like to f/u with some questions.
Management put forward Article 8.D, which is around on-call availability requirements. We agree that we should move to six shifts in six weeks. That’s where the agreement ends. Management wants to add rules that removes flexibility. Labor has already worked on a proposal for this article.
Management is upset that we have not countered their one sentence Article 4 proposal . . . while simultaneously refusing to fill the information request we need to prepare a counter.
Management then says they would like to know if we want to set a date to have all proposals presented. Katie said that we have made it clear from the beginning that most of our contract is from the 70s and needs to be re-written. We have a poor contract; this is something our members are willing to strike for. It is why we do not have a talent pool! All the other RN contracts are available online and nurses are leaving for better contracts.
16:30 – We caucus the rest of the day to work on counter-proposals.
3/28/25
Today, March 28th, we were back at negotiations with management for our local RN table. Management called for a caucus to start the day, initially pushing our 08:00 start to 10:00, then requesting at 09:45 to extend that caucus until 11:00.
They said that they appreciated the time for allowing them to work on proposals. They brought forward a counter-proposal to one of ours as well as a new proposal. They also had some clarifying questions and planned to present additional counter-proposals.
Article 16 is quite large and there was a request to split it up in countering three sections. We agreed, with the understanding that we may choose to not counter that proposal until we have received all of it. Article 16 sections A and B deal with seniority, and those are important. Management thanked labor for a much more manageable process and improved transparency. They presented a counter-proposal and there was good conversation about the changes from both sides of the negotiating table, these sections of the article are close to being in agreement with no major disagreements having arisen. We continue to work on cleaning up the contract so it is more concise and clearer to interpret for our members. Labor has not said a set time when we will offer a counter-proposal as management will not present a counter for the rest of Article 16 until the next bargaining session.
Management then presented their first proposal on Article 4 - Union Security. Specifically, they want to have unlimited travelers and to eliminate traveler blocks entirely. They proposed to strike the entirety of section E and change it to “Kaiser has the right to meet the immediate day-to-day operational needs by contracting for services, for example, through agency or temporary employees.” Management’s reasoning was there are unfilled shifts and fluctuating census counts and they need “flexibility” to meet organizational needs. We immediately submitted a request for information for how many unfilled shifts there have been over the last sixyears (including pre-covid) and the accompanying census data.
We thanked management for putting so much work into the proposals they presented, but chose not to respond to that proposal at this time. This remains the only proposal that management has presented after two full days of bargaining.
Management walked Labor through their thoughts on the counter-proposal of Article 13, which is about Charge Nurses. They agree that outpatient Team Leads will be called Charge Nurse. Labor then asked clarifying questions on the changes that were made so we could counter. Unfortunately, management chose to strike text and add statements such as: Management reserves the right to make final decisions regarding ______________ In several places in their proposal, which means they get the right to determine when they can make final decisions. We pointed out that it is not in the spirit of Partnership and takes away Labor's voice in our work. Management didn’t understand why inpatient charge nurses would benefit from admin time. Katie Johnson stated that as Magnet is a goal of Kaiser this is a way that we can empower Charge Nurses to be leaders in the units. This time can be used for committee work, process improvement, quality metrics, education, and other activities to better the department. Magnet requires engagement of nurses and this is how we allow that to happen. There was discussion around hiring charges and relief charges to streamline the process while assuring the right people are in the right positions. Everyone agrees that we do not want these to be popularity contests. The removal of a nurse from charge was also discussed, language presented with the intent to eliminate the ability of management to unilaterally make the decision without Just Cause.
Management wanted to strike any language that “is current practice,” but labor countered that this doesn’t happen frequently. Jamie Dobbs presented a story where while she is SMC ICU float, she is MSICU relief charge. She was forced to do charge in CVICU which she is not qualified for. She is not qualified to be a resource in that department to back up care with, and complications did occur. No incentive was offered to bring in a qualified Charge Nurse for that shift. It was inappropriate to force her to fulfill this role. This just happened in the last two weeks in the SMC NICU, so it was a fresh example of this problem. The article is moving along. Management will present a counter proposal in the next bargaining session 4/9.
Labor then presented three additional proposals:
- Article 5: Non-discrimination and Workplace Harassment. Change in verbiage is to streamline the process so that employees are not involved in a prolonged process for a response or be able to escalate. The list of descriptors was expanded to include: race, color, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, immigration status, marital status, disability, domestic partnership status, familial status including parental status, pregnancy, status as a victim of domestic violence, veteran status, and membership in or activity on behalf of the Union.
- Article Two: Labor’s intention is that if Kaiser were to purchase, say Salmon Creek Hospital (rumors suggest this is a possibility), then those acquired workers would be covered by this contract. Summary is that If Kaiser were to expand the Northwest then OFNHP would be the sole bargaining agent for RNs. This will address the kinds of issues that happened at Westside and the more recently acquired clinic. We want to ensure that as Kaiser grows, our union grows alongside it so they cannot undercut other workers or pit them against unionized workers.
- Article 6: We moved some of the language from Appendix L that is a nonsensical jumble of language as some of its best lives here. Language was cleaned up and changed to address many of the disagreements that labor and management have surrounding release of union stewards and officers and what activities that Kaiser will compensate us for.
Sam said he feels really good about the first two sessions, the conversations, that we are getting to proposals quickly and it is going to be good. Conversations have been good, but we also need movement on the issues that matter most. We will be back in negotiations on 4/9 and will update you at the end of that session.
3/24/25
Our RN Bargaining Team began negotiations at 0831 when six members of the management team joined us in our conference room at the Kaiser Permanente Building (KPB). We began with introductions, including our roles, tenure at Kaiser, and why we were at the table.
Opening statements were given by the first chairs Sam Hayden, HR’s lawyer, and Katie Johnson, our Chair. Management spoke about how Kaiser Northwest is getting better through bargaining, our desire to work together, that nurses are the backbone of healthcare and that nothing works without us, and that our group in the room had the power to impact our day-to-day workplace experiences with an agreement we will be proud to ratify.
Johnson spoke about the challenges of working at Kaiser, being direct care in this particular moment, Kaiser’s failures, what Kaiser used to feel like and what we could return to, our goals of bargaining, and our intent to bargain as a collective team: #onevoiceonefuture.
Management apologized for their lack of attendance. It is a challenging week due to spring break at schools.
We entered into a discussion around the rules of bargaining. Nothing surprising was covered other than management still won’t agree to allow observers or “open bargaining.” Management claimed their leaders are having conversations about this topic.
Labor and management both presented interests that they have identified.
Management shared the following interests but have yet to provide proposals:
General clean-up of contract language
- Article 3 - Bargaining Unit: “Team Lead language”
- Article 4 - Union Security: “Traveler IR and all the associated issues”
- Article 8 - Employee Category Definitions: “Would like to look at on-call language”
- Article 10 - Hours, Overtime and Schedules – Inpatient: “Standby language, weekend coverage”
- Article 13 - Team Leader – Outpatient / Charge Nurse – Inpatient: “Team lead language”
- Article 16 - Seniority: “Hiring language, with regard to ONA as well. We have that shared interest”
- Appendices: “LOUs in general - desire to incorporate them into the contract”
- Appendix I - RN Double Time Incentive
- Appendix J - Hospital Nurse Staffing Process: “red line process”
We then discussed common interests with effort to begin with areas that would seem non-contentious and that won’t “cost” Kaiser anything to start.
- Changing language in the contract to be gender neutral, removing pronouns and referencing “a RN” or “the RN” instead. Management asked if we had a proposal as they had done something similar with SEIU during their negotiations. They will send as an example and then labor will present a proposal with the change occurring in redline.
- Seniority is labor intensive to calculate and often has mistakes in it that can cause mistrust and unnecessary disputes. Labor would like credit to members seniority to move to a date of hire system into an OFNHP represented position (across bargaining table). Tie breaker would be the date of original licensure. We also want to establish the definition of Departmental Seniority, and update and clean up language around job postings, selection process, lay offs, bumping rights, floating, and cross training. Many other contracts were utilized in drafting the language presented to management.
- Labor presented interest to strike Article 9 as the position no longer exists and when it was last utilized it was not filled by an RN. The classes are now online.
- Management asked about interest in bulletin boards. Labor presented that bulletin boards need to be in areas that are utilized by most of the staff, not in back rooms that, while technically accessible to staff, are not readily seen by most in daily activity. Clarification that it would still be in an area not accessible to patients and visitors.
Review of labor proposal for changes in article 16 seniority. After clarifying questions management called for a caucus. They will need time to review as it is a large article, there is shared interest in updating seniority, they will present counter-proposal at a later date.
Short discussion over striking Article 9, only mild concern is the chance of reinstating the position, agreement then made to strike to article. The First Tentative Agreement (TA) was then signed at 13:40! This shows incredible progress right from the beginning.
A shared interest pertaining to Charge Nurses was identified. Hiring and selections of Charge Nurse/Team Lead was identified by both groups. Discussion of current language, what works, and what does not. There was discussion about administrative time, clinical practice days, clarifying role, training, and standardizing language.
At 15:00 a caucus for management was called to work on counter proposals with plans to present heir own proposal. RNs will continue to work on our proposals around shared interests.
Our next bargaining session is Friday, March 28th from 8am-5pm (0800-1700). It will be followed up with our regular members tele-town hall so you can hear directly from the Bargaining Team how things went. Check the information below if you would like to attend.
Topic: RN Bargaining information updates
Time: Mar 28, 2025 05:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://aft.zoom.us/j/5237530976?pwd=K5VG8jnS68tGpKIQqhTaR0Rlpk7xFD.1&omn=93531611361
Meeting ID: 523 753 0976
Passcode: OFNHP